Nah, it will likely make no difference to the majority. I know I certainly have no incentive to put any more effort in. I'll never get a nomination because I'm not a good enough painter, so I'm not going to put any more effort in than my own personal pride requires (not very much!)This will hopefully mean that more people will put the extra effort into painting there armies rather than going with a half arsed minimum effort
Glad to hear about the sanctions for bad sportsmanship and I hope it won't be needed. I'm pretty sure most gamers consider good sportsmanship a minimum requirement for a good game so good to see it will be punished if lacking.If anyone doesn't behave in this way, the referees are now empowered to take action that could potentially lead to a players removal from a tournament. Sometimes, there are people out there who do something exceptional that makes everyone in the events team stand up and take notice (and I don't mean funny outfits). When this happens we feel they deserve some recognition for that attitude and because we want to encourage good sportsmanship we offer them a place at the final.
My only issue with this is that the current GT system only reflects two of the three available mission levels. Thus any comparison between armies is inherently flawed as it lacks Alpha level missions.baderson said:As I work for GW I am duty bound to design and run our GT using the Standard rules as a foundation. With this in mind, we don't plan to include anything to reflect composition or direct restrictions to army lists in the way your question suggests. The game as a whole benefits from this because we can see how these armies are playing out and it does direct games developers to consider issues arising from the density of particular armies at the GT. I hope that makes sense.